An article I read said that the Hillary campaign seemed to think that because Trump appeared so bad, all the campaign had to do was to make the election about him, and focus things on him, and then the American electorate would reject Trump and by default vote for Hillary instead.
The approach missed two things: 1) Hillary’s own unpopularity and 2) You can’t give your opponent the bulk of the attention, focus and coverage like that, it’s a dangerous strategy.
I think Trump’s brilliant move was to basically tell Rust Belt and miners that they have been supporting Democrats for 30 years and nothing has changed to which they replied, you’re right.
I think that is the core of this whole election year mess. Only those who treat political parties as religions have faith in either side. The parties have created the mess and each claims to be the best choice to clean it up. Their stranglehold on the political system makes it impossible for a serious alternative to emerge. Even now after Trump has rattled both ends of the monster it is just reforming like a liquid metal terminator. I expect the next election to be a backlash against this one, and that cycle to repeat for a long time.
The US coal industry is not “going out of business” except on a decades-long scale. Don’t confuse coal company bankruptcies with “the death of coal is nigh.” The EIA still predicts coal will supply easily more than 1/3 of all our electricity out to 2040, even under Clean Power Plan scenarios. Most likely, coal is going to level out at 40% generation over the next 10 years, which is still a damn lot of coal use.
Neither Clinton, nor Obama, is primarily responsible for coal’s decline of the last 6 years. The primary cause is competition from cheap fracked gas. When gas can be supplied to my client’s CCGTs on a net energy basis at less than the delivered cost of coal…they have no incentive to burn the coal, all pollution regulations aside. Yes in many cases there was a contributing factor of potential emissions controls upgrades as well, but these emissions controls upgrades would have been done if gas had remained above $5/MBtu. With gas predicted to not even exceed $4/MBtu until maybe 5 years from now…yeah, why burn coal in some areas?
There is the non-zero possibility that potential restrictions on fracking which Clinton and her advisers discussed would have given a small boost to coal in a few, targeted areas. There were predictions that fracking regulations could have raised the cost by $0.50 per MBtu, which even then might still not have been enough to shift the balance back to coal.
This is my daily professional work, and has been for almost 24 years. Almost every coal plant that has shut down or is shutting down in the US over the last 6 years either is owned by a current or former client of mine. This very morning I’m working on a plan to convert 1,000 MW of coal to gas in the Eastern US, and 3,000 MW of coal in the North to gas. If the coal miners want to blame Clinton as the Great Satan in Clouds of Sulphur, well they are not really spending the time to understand what is actually threatening their job.
I assume they understand in general the reality you’ve described. She disrespected them is all it’s about.
If Colorado is any indicator, expect ANY federal regulations to be tied up in the courts for a long time from both energy companies and state governments.
I sincerely doubt that all it’s about, and I sincerely doubt, being a person who works with coal miners and coal companies, that they either understand the economic situation, or believe it.
You certainly have it from the horse’s mouth so I accept that. But I think if a candidate says their going to put any industry out of business the reaction would be the same.
Well true, it is a metaphorical turd in the punchbowl; we are in agreement.
I’ve thought about this question from my standpoint as a sci-fi geek and asked myself, if I could travel back in time 6 months and tell Hillary how it turned out, what advise could I give her on doing things differently? Here’s some of my thoughts. Maybe no individual thing would have been enough, but together I think they would have been enough.
Chose Bernie as her running mate.
Not avoid the press the whole summer. I remember there was one point, I think it was in late August or early September, when Clinton was reported to have not had a press conference in something like 60 days.
She should have addressed the email issue directly sometime before the conventions. Not just issue a statement, but sit with the press for an hour or two and answer all the questions directly. No evasion or misdirection, if she has to admit some uncomfortable truths, so be it. Just get it all out in the open.
Get her pneumonia vaccine.
Warn her not to use the phrase basket of deplorables.
Campaign more in the rust belt, forget about Arizona, Georgia, and Utah. Those were just pipe dreams.
Speak more about her positive ideas to help improve people’s lives. I don’t mean to focus on specific details like a policy wonk, but more about how she really does want to make things better by looking to the future instead of trying to bring back a 1950s America that can’t be brought back.
Maybe have more town hall type meetings with voters on the ground in the rust belt. Not just giving a stump speech, but sitting with voters, listening to their concerns, and addressing then in a genuine manner.